I understand both points, however I believe nuclear energy is a worthwhile investment because it generates a lot of energy and will not take up as much space as alternative energy generators like wind turbines and dams. On the topic of dams, nuclear energy is not totally catastrophic for habitats, yes all land that is cleared for projects like these will destroy habitats, but it's better than clearing many many acres for sparse wind turbines when we could just concentrate everything into a nuclear power facility that (albeit very large), probably won't take up as much space, and will still generate far more electricity than a wind turbine farm. I know it says "best counter argument" but I still want to address the cleaner alternatives; nuclear power plants are extremely expensive and take a very long time to build, so really I'd say it depends on what money the government can offer for these types of projects. For example, if the government had billions of pounds then I think it should be invested into nuclear energy because you'll get a lot more so it would be worth the money, but if there wasn't enough funding for that, then I wouldn't be opposed to wind turbine farms or geothermal energy generation for instance.